what’s going on in the US at the moment is unbelievably awful.
Fanny definitely, charities are often niche by nature- charities have to define who they set out to benefit very specifically as part of being legally allowed to exist as a charity.
But, charities are also big employers, because there are a lot of charities although individually they usually have only a small number of staff. So people employed by charities make up a part of the UK economy too. And you could also say- while companies have no remit to benefit anyone- that technically, a charity that ceases to exist no longer benefits its beneficiaries who need their help, be that people or animals or the environment or whatever it is. (Not all charities are effective or have aims which everyone supports but that’s a separate question.)
The government measures to reduce economic shock are designed to protect the economy overall, eg by keeping furloughed people and their families afloat, which is really valuable to them and to all of us whatever sector we work in. That aim of keeping consumers fed and still economically active (spending) applies to charity staff, even where the charities have an aim that’s irrelevant to many of us. So charities can already apply for furlough help but there’s apparently some prohibitive red tape for them in the government support packages, because the packages were built quickly and with small businesses in mind. So that’s the kind of questioning of government policy that a charity Patron with media clout might be minded to comment on.
Govt rightly doesn’t ask whether commercial companies’ products are socially useful nor if a company is even profitable before they are eligible to be offered taxpayer- funded furlough support for their staff, because as taxpayers, we are temporarily paying for this to protect their workers’ wider role within our economy.
Victoria Beckham’s vanity project of running a clothing company could be a good example- It makes very very very expensive clothes that ‘benefit’ only tiny numbers of people who can afford them. (Shout out to Meghan - I think that recent blue dress in London in the rain shot was in a VB dress).
VB’s company has reportedly never made a profit in years and yet it provides a social good by employing people. So she was about to furlough her staff on government money before there was an outcry that morally, she should also personally cover the furlough costs because she could obviously afford to do so and having never made a profit in x years, furloughing would cost her personally less money than usual trading would.. but that’s also another story).
Some blogs here from the NCVO: the umbrella body that represents UK-based charities. These set out the type of practical help they say their sector needs. Clearly this would be the kind of thing inappropriate for SRF patrons to comment on, but, I wonder, H&M...? Are they royal patrons as they were or are they now patrons in the real world? In what way are they interested in philanthropy now?
blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2020/05/05/making-the-governments-covid-19-support-schemes-work-better-for-charities/
blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2020/05/12/government-support-getting-the-balance-right/